Is NOAA fudging the numbers?

Is NOAA fudging the numbers?

21 Mar 2018 – A couple of days ago I posted a map from NOAA showing that most of the warming on our planet during the month of January took place in the oceans, not on land.

An alert reader (Gabriel) immediately pointed out that NOAA’s map is at odds with the January map issued by Brazil’s Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia (INMET).

I’ve zoomed in on the NOAA map (below) to highlight Brazil. The NOAA map clearly shows “warmer than average” or “much warmer than average” temperatures across Brazil during the month of January. It shows that only a tiny portion of Brazil enjoyed near average temperatures during that time.

Jan 2018 temps in Brazil as per NOAA

Now take a look at INMET’s January map of Brazil (below).

Jan 2018 temps in Brazil as per INMET

It sure does present a different picture, doesn’t it?

Which map are we to believe?

Map below is from my post of 19 March 2018, “Is our planet really burning up?”

Thanks to Gabriel for the INMET map.

“I think it’s easier to download the graphs and follow the discussion from the following twitter users (at least I’ve found it interesting…),” says Gabriel.

14 thoughts on “Is NOAA fudging the numbers?”

  1. The key observation I take from this is that the five major data sets which come from the Anglo-Saxon speaking Met Offices are all suspect.
    I wouldn’t surprised, to find that enhanced data co pollinates the others with tampered data, particularly from NOAA to the others.
    The other thing is that every one of the leaders of these Met Offices has received the same AGW degree training as each other; the course is the same regardless of country.
    Without a degree in recognised Climate course none of the place holders can hold a Government post.
    First rule of socialism entry politics is noble the propaganda that you teach to the kids, and then it becomes self-generating.

  2. Tony Heller at Deplorable climate has shown many times that NOAA’s regional map is garbage.

    For example, go to NOAA’s website. Here is their map of areas where they actually have data onshore.

    Here is their global map incorporating what they reckon are land and ocean data.

    Just look at the differences they produce.

    Take Africa as an example. The pixels where they claim to have data show cooler than average in parts of South Africa, northern Mozambique, Ethiopia, most of Algeria, Morocco, the Canary Islands, extending into Niger, and in Senegal, Gambia, Guinea and Mauritania.

    Meanwhile take their finished product, ie their global temperature maps, and just look what they do. The cool pixels in Northern Mozambique and Ethiopia have disappeared. If one was extrapolating fairly, there would be a cool band extending from southern Algeria and Niger all the way to Ethiopia. Instead, Noaa reflects a single cool block on the border between Chad and Sudan.

    Their global map is a monthly fraud, which does not even reflect the data they publish on their own website.

  3. Which Map do you believe depends on do you believe the AGW Hoax or not believe the AGW Hoax.

    Oceans are warmed directly by the Sun, the Atmosphere is warmed by the radiant heat from the Earth. The only true Temperature reading of the Earth are those taken above the surface of the Earth. Who cares that the jug of water that has been sitting in the sun is at 120 degrees, it is the temperature away from the jug that matters.

  4. One of the few good things about global cooling is that you cannot hide it. If you tell someone that it is one degree hotter today than it was X years ago, well who can tell the difference? No normal human being can. But if you are up to your waist in snow no one can conceal it, they cannot homogenise (alter) it, they cannot infill it (make it up), they cannot colour it away, they cannot hockey stick it out of existence.
    Bitter cold and meters of snow are reality. And it is literally going be one of the greatest ironies in history that a bunch of deluded individuals managed to capture out highly politicised world with their self induced belief in AGW.

    • “OR” NASA !

      These [ entities ] (NASA & NOAA) are exceedingly EVIL, these craps report directly from HELL !!!

      These things are an enemy of all of mankind and if possible would see a reduction in Human numbers by 25% at least (Say 2 or 3 “Billion”), and that is their ultimate goal, too many people, too many waisted resources, on too many undesirables who serve “no” actual purpose and the Planet (Earth) is better without them !

      These are what is called [ EARTHERS ] and Earth is their God, literally…

      And since You and I are not following in line with their cause and purpose, therefore We are to be removed, 1st energy (Heat, Fuel), 2nd water, 3rd food, 4th “deleted”, hence issue solved !!!

      There’s really not much to stop them ?

      They’re Winning !

      And people always wake up to late, when it’s too late to turn back the clock, and it happens over and over and over again ???


  5. John, same here. But when I talk to people on this subject, everyone refers to data from noaa. And, when you mention they are fudging the numbers, I completely lose them.

  6. The nor’easters traveling up the east coast of the USA have given Newfoundland persistent east winds which have pushed the sea-ice, which normally flows down the west coast of Baffin Bay and out to sea east of Newfoundland, up against the shore. Although this reduces the “extent” of sea-ice it increases the thickness, and in places the sea-ice, usually slushy and 1-2 feet thick, is trapping boats, and in places approaches 30 feet thick. Icebreakers have had to come to the rescue. In one case the ice apparently crushed and sank a fishing boat, leaving the men standing on the ice. But can I find any news about this?

    No. Instead the CBC reports on the blather of climate scientists as they adroitly explain how thirty feet of ice is due to warming.

  7. I was skeptical of their rainfall totals two seasons ago here in Cali so I bought my own rain gauge and started comparing my results to the NOAA data and the personal weather stations from Weather Underground. My data very closely matched the WU stations, usually within a tenth of an inch. NOAA was consistently three quarters of an inch to a whole inch lower on the daily totals during the big rainstorms we had last season (winter ’16-17). Something’s fishy with their data collection to be sure.

Comments are closed.